Get curated active and upcoming crypto airdrops — 35 hand-verified entries with chain, status, eligibility info — Curated list of active airdrop opportunities. updatedAt reflects the last manual content revision, not request time. Cached ~1hr.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| airdrops | No | ||
| updatedAt | No | ||
| dataSource | No | ||
| attribution | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "airdrops": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "chain": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "token": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "attribution": {
+ "$ref": "#/components/schemas/Attribution"
+ },
+ "dataSource": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "updatedAt": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the manual curation process, the meaning of updatedAt, and the ~1hr cache behavior, which helps the agent interpret data freshness and expect a stable, hand-maintained dataset.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is some redundancy ('Curated list of active airdrop opportunities' restates the opening clause), but the additional freshness and cache details are valuable and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states content, scope, freshness semantics, and caching. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and to interpret its results correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so parameter ambiguity is not a concern. The description compensates by outlining what the response contains (chain, status, eligibility info), giving the agent useful context about the returned data without needing to inspect the output schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly scoped resource ('curated active and upcoming crypto airdrops'), and adds concrete detail about the content (35 hand-verified entries, chain, status, eligibility). This makes the tool's purpose and scope immediately distinct from the analytics-heavy sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use it: when the agent needs active or upcoming airdrop opportunities rather than history or analytics. It also sets freshness expectations ('updatedAt reflects the last manual content revision, not request time. Cached ~1hr.'), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.